Talk:1159: Countdown - Revision history

172.68.54.65 at 07:42, 30 October 2024

2024-10-30T07:42:45Z

172.70.86.68 at 22:02, 27 January 2022

2022-01-27T22:02:25Z

Waterengineer at 18:43, 27 January 2022

2022-01-27T18:43:28Z

Lupo: possible link to 4

2019-09-26T14:49:47Z

possible link to 4

108.162.216.111 at 01:12, 26 February 2015

2015-02-26T01:12:59Z

Weatherlawyer at 20:42, 11 January 2015

2015-01-11T20:42:05Z

141.101.104.17 at 23:00, 11 December 2014

2014-12-11T23:00:30Z

108.162.212.18 at 00:05, 16 February 2014

2014-02-16T00:05:06Z

108.162.212.18 at 23:56, 15 February 2014

2014-02-15T23:56:23Z

Dgbrt: Don't edit foreign posts and SIGN yours!

2013-12-18T12:15:25Z

Don't edit foreign posts and SIGN yours!

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:42, 30 October 2024
Line 57:		Line 57:
	For every one time the 6th digit rolls over, you will have one moment when the last eight digits are "00002409". You could assume that the number on the countdown clock started as a 14-digit number, so the 6th digit will roll over at LEAST 100,000 times, and the last 8 digits will read 00002409 at least 100,000 times. Therefore Blackhat is right to be unconcered about the very low probably of the event occuring in the next hour, which makes sense as a way to think about supervolcanos. ~~Waterengineer~~ {{unsigned\|Waterengineer}}		For every one time the 6th digit rolls over, you will have one moment when the last eight digits are "00002409". You could assume that the number on the countdown clock started as a 14-digit number, so the 6th digit will roll over at LEAST 100,000 times, and the last 8 digits will read 00002409 at least 100,000 times. Therefore Blackhat is right to be unconcered about the very low probably of the event occuring in the next hour, which makes sense as a way to think about supervolcanos. ~~Waterengineer~~ {{unsigned\|Waterengineer}}
	:...just moved and sort-of-signed your comment. Bottom-posting is the standard in Talk (or indent with a(n extra) ":" straight after what you want to reply ''to''...) and using "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" to auto-insert a time-and-dated signature, like I'm doing, is advisible. If you have an account (like you do) you can modify what your .sig text is quite a lot, so "~~Waterengineer~~" can form part of it if you wish. Hope that helps. Please do enjoy your future editing! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.68\|172.70.86.68]] 22:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)		:...just moved and sort-of-signed your comment. Bottom-posting is the standard in Talk (or indent with a(n extra) ":" straight after what you want to reply ''to''...) and using "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" to auto-insert a time-and-dated signature, like I'm doing, is advisible. If you have an account (like you do) you can modify what your .sig text is quite a lot, so "~~Waterengineer~~" can form part of it if you wish. Hope that helps. Please do enjoy your future editing! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.68\|172.70.86.68]] 22:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	What if the picture is meant to resemble the landscape from comic #4? I think it looks similar enough to not be a coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.65\|172.68.54.65]] 07:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:02, 27 January 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	For every one time the 6th digit rolls over, you will have one moment when the last eight digits are "00002409". You could assume that the number on the countdown clock started as a 14-digit number, so the 6th digit will roll over at LEAST 100,000 times, and the last 8 digits will read 00002409 at least 100,000 times. Therefore Blackhat is right to be unconcered about the very low probably of the event occuring in the next hour, which makes sense as a way to think about supervolcanos. ~~Waterengineer~~
−
	If you assume (with nothing else known), that large numbers have a probability about reciprocal to themselves to ensure a sum/integral of 1, the digits not being zeroes is extremely unlikely.		If you assume (with nothing else known), that large numbers have a probability about reciprocal to themselves to ensure a sum/integral of 1, the digits not being zeroes is extremely unlikely.

Line 56:		Line 54:

	There has been some speculation about the picture. Someone noticed that it also closely remembers the very early "comic" (sketch) [[4]]? --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 14:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)		There has been some speculation about the picture. Someone noticed that it also closely remembers the very early "comic" (sketch) [[4]]? --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 14:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	For every one time the 6th digit rolls over, you will have one moment when the last eight digits are "00002409". You could assume that the number on the countdown clock started as a 14-digit number, so the 6th digit will roll over at LEAST 100,000 times, and the last 8 digits will read 00002409 at least 100,000 times. Therefore Blackhat is right to be unconcered about the very low probably of the event occuring in the next hour, which makes sense as a way to think about supervolcanos. ~~Waterengineer~~ {{unsigned\|Waterengineer}}
		+	:...just moved and sort-of-signed your comment. Bottom-posting is the standard in Talk (or indent with a(n extra) ":" straight after what you want to reply ''to''...) and using "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" to auto-insert a time-and-dated signature, like I'm doing, is advisible. If you have an account (like you do) you can modify what your .sig text is quite a lot, so "~~Waterengineer~~" can form part of it if you wish. Hope that helps. Please do enjoy your future editing! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.68\|172.70.86.68]] 22:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 27 January 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	For every one time the 6th digit rolls over, you will have one moment when the last eight digits are "00002409". You could assume that the number on the countdown clock started as a 14-digit number, so the 6th digit will roll over at LEAST 100,000 times, and the last 8 digits will read 00002409 at least 100,000 times. Therefore Blackhat is right to be unconcered about the very low probably of the event occuring in the next hour, which makes sense as a way to think about supervolcanos. ~~Waterengineer~~
		+
	If you assume (with nothing else known), that large numbers have a probability about reciprocal to themselves to ensure a sum/integral of 1, the digits not being zeroes is extremely unlikely.		If you assume (with nothing else known), that large numbers have a probability about reciprocal to themselves to ensure a sum/integral of 1, the digits not being zeroes is extremely unlikely.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:49, 26 September 2019
Line 52:		Line 52:

	I believe the more you learn about something the less you fear it. Unfortunately you have to use Windows to access the Smithsonian archives so if you are reading these comics >>>thataway>>> STOP NOW! (use Listserv or follow me on sci.geo.earthquakes.)[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)		I believe the more you learn about something the less you fear it. Unfortunately you have to use Windows to access the Smithsonian archives so if you are reading these comics >>>thataway>>> STOP NOW! (use Listserv or follow me on sci.geo.earthquakes.)[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	There has been some speculation about the picture. Someone noticed that it also closely remembers the very early "comic" (sketch) [[4]]? --[[User:Lupo\|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo\|talk]]) 14:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ::This is a wholly inappropriate accusation to make here. If you have a problem, please put it through appropriate channels. No editor has a perfect score, we all slip up because we're all human. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]])  23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 : Assuming that the middle digits are random, the expected value is 1.53 million years. But: If the display is off-the-shelf, it is probably larger than the largest number actually displayed. Maybe the counter started at 1e8, and the next smaller display had only 8 digits. Maybe we should have a look at the statistical distribution of digits in commercially available LED displays ... [[Special:Contributions/77.88.71.157|77.88.71.157]] 08:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 ::I don't think there are displays with that many digits. You have to buy several one digit (perhaps four digits) displays and multiplex them together. 23:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:42, 11 January 2015
Line 41:		Line 41:

	I think that it should be mentioned that there is no reliable way to accurately predict volcanic eruptions in the long-term; the best we can do is check current seismic activity to get an idea if it might happen "soon". A countdown clock would either be based on misconceptions that volcanoes follow statistical patterns and therefore based on gambler's fallacy, or would have to be based on future data or magic. That it is mentioned as an "oracle countdown" alludes to this, but I don't think it adequately explains the futility of predicting seismic activity. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17\|141.101.104.17]] 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)		I think that it should be mentioned that there is no reliable way to accurately predict volcanic eruptions in the long-term; the best we can do is check current seismic activity to get an idea if it might happen "soon". A countdown clock would either be based on misconceptions that volcanoes follow statistical patterns and therefore based on gambler's fallacy, or would have to be based on future data or magic. That it is mentioned as an "oracle countdown" alludes to this, but I don't think it adequately explains the futility of predicting seismic activity. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17\|141.101.104.17]] 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	: Just in time by the look of things'''
		+
		+	Supervolcanic eruptions are signalled not by seismic waves but by tropical storms -from which they seem to draw their power. The steps are missing that fully describe the energy flow. But the sequence is still good, at least for fairly low VEI numbers. The heavy stuff from the 1980's doesn't carry the other data I require: So we wait.
		+
		+	If you are suffering volcano induced trauma, find yourself a planet-wide tropical storm advisory page and check it once every few days. I once met a Japanese couple who were caught in the Kobe disaster. The woman was still very nervous about things but I knew I didn't know enough then to comfort her. Shortly after that or about that time, Mt Untzen erupted, killing the journalists sent there by their lords and stoopids. I asked god to help me understand these things but I was too stupid to listen in those days.
		+
		+	Life is for regrets to blossom in.
		+
		+	I believe the more you learn about something the less you fear it. Unfortunately you have to use Windows to access the Smithsonian archives so if you are reading these comics >>>thataway>>> STOP NOW! (use Listserv or follow me on sci.geo.earthquakes.)[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 20:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:00, 11 December 2014
Line 39:		Line 39:

	:If you had read all the comments, you would have seen that someone else already thought the same, and nesting your comment below his/hers would make more sense. But that's just me grammar naziing around. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.18\|108.162.212.18]] 00:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)		:If you had read all the comments, you would have seen that someone else already thought the same, and nesting your comment below his/hers would make more sense. But that's just me grammar naziing around. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.18\|108.162.212.18]] 00:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	I think that it should be mentioned that there is no reliable way to accurately predict volcanic eruptions in the long-term; the best we can do is check current seismic activity to get an idea if it might happen "soon". A countdown clock would either be based on misconceptions that volcanoes follow statistical patterns and therefore based on gambler's fallacy, or would have to be based on future data or magic. That it is mentioned as an "oracle countdown" alludes to this, but I don't think it adequately explains the futility of predicting seismic activity. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17\|141.101.104.17]] 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ::This is a wholly inappropriate accusation to make here. If you have a problem, please put it through appropriate channels. No editor has a perfect score, we all slip up because we're all human. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]])  23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 : Assuming that the middle digits are random, the expected value is 1.53 million years. But: If the display is off-the-shelf, it is probably larger than the largest number actually displayed. Maybe the counter started at 1e8, and the next smaller display had only 8 digits. Maybe we should have a look at the statistical distribution of digits in commercially available LED displays ... [[Special:Contributions/77.88.71.157|77.88.71.157]] 08:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
-::I don't think there are displays with that many digits. You have to buy several one digit (perhaps four digit) displays and multiplex them together. 23:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 "I forget which one" may be a reference to the 7 known supervolcanoes, or it might be to a list published by the Guardian in 2005 of the top 10 existential threats to life on Earth, which went briefly viral. It included a supervolcano eruption, as well as viral pandemic, meteorite strike, greenhouse gases, superintelligent robots, nuclear war, cosmic rays, terrorism,  black holes, and  telomere erosion [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/apr/14/research.science2]
@@ Line 36: / Line 37: @@
 Could "the odds are in our favour" be a reference to the hunger games? {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.240}}

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 Benford's Law has no bearing on what any of the covered digits are except the first, and even then it only weakly applies; it only applies to the FIRST digit of natural numbers, and since we can have leading 0's is really doesn't apply. Furthermore, even if it applied to all the digits, the probability distribution on the covered digits is not affected by the shown digits; that's not how probability works.  If I flip a coin 10 times and it's heads all ten times, the probability that the 11th flip is still 50/50. -Mike Powers
-:Benford's Law shows that with real-life (physical) numbers you cannot just use a 10% probability for each digit. These numbers are not uniformally, but lognormally distributed. That means, there is a smaller tendency to greater numbers than their possible number space would allow. Benford's Law with its relevancy to the first n digits is not directly applicable here, but its general validity contradicts some of the assumptions normally often made. As you see many zeroes in the middle part, the probability is quite high that also the first digits are zero. Here the length of the number has a normal distribution and a short number is about as probable as a long one. And long ones with zeroes in the middle are seldom so it is probably a short number. This would not be the case, if each digit is randomly selected from 0-9. Then the greater prUobability of longer numbers would cancel out this effect. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 10:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
+:Benford's Law shows that with real-life (physical) numbers you cannot just use a 10% probability for each digit. These numbers are not uniformally, but lognormally distributed. That means, there is a smaller tendency to greater numbers than their possible number space would allow. Benford's Law with its relevancy to the first n digits is not directly applicable here, but its general validity contradicts some of the assumptions normally often made. As you see many zeroes in the middle part, the probability is quite high that also the first digits are zero. Here the length of the number has a normal distribution and a short number is about as probable as a long one. And long ones with zeroes in the middle are seldom so it is probably a short number. This would not be the case, if each digit is randomly selected from 0-9. Then the greater probability of longer numbers would cancel out this effect. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 10:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 :Regarding the independence of the digits: That is conditional probability. We have a probability distribution for the complete number. In nature this is a lognormal distribution (with suitable parameters regarding the scale; that is why the intention to buy a display with certain width is important). That means zero digits are quite common, as short numbers have much weight. With just creating the digits independently you do not get a lognormal distribution. With four zeroes shown only 1/10.000 of the longer numbers are possible any longer, making them much rarer. To begin with they would need a probability of at least 10.000 as high to counter this effect, but they do not have it (with a uniformal distribution they would have it). Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 10:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 :If we have initially the same probability for numbers of digit length 1-14 (about 7%): After looking we (partly) know that digits 1 till 4 are non-zero and digits 5-8 are zero. Then numbers of digit length 1-3 have 0% probability, numbers with digit length 5-8 have 0% probability. Numbers with digit length 9-14 have a probability of 0.01% each and numbers with length 4 have a probability of 99.94%. The results differ with the logarithmic distribution of number length. E.g. with mu=11 digits and sigma=2 digits, the probability of 4 digits is 85%. With mu=12 digits and sigma=3 digits, the probability of 4 digits is 98.3%. With mu=7.5 digits and sigma=4 digits the probability of 4 digits is 99.95%. With mu=12 digits and sigma=2 digits, the probability of 4 digits is 47.64%. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 11:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 The 11:59 subtle joke is slightly reinforced as the countdown steps over 2400. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
-Could "the odds are in our favour" be a reference to the hunger games?
+Could "the odds are in our favour" be a reference to the hunger games? {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.240}}